Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNION-1993-19-02 IN THE MA TIER OF AN ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT R.S.O.1990 c.L.2 BETWEEN: THE CARLETON PLACE AND DISTRICT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL' the Hospital AND: THE ASSOCIATION OF ALLIED HEALTH PROFESSIONALS: ONTARIO the Association ASSOCIATION GRIEVANCE RE: RETROACTIVITY OF PERCENTAGE IN LIEU, VACATION PAY AND PREGNANCY LEAVE SUPPLEMENTAL UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PLAN SOLE ARBITRATOR: J.E. Emrich APPEARANCES: R. Bunker Consultant, O.H.A. Asst. Executive Director, Human Relations and Special Services Asst. Executive Director" Finance and Support Services Payroll Officer For the Hospital: J. Wakely A. O'Brien G. Todd For the Association: P. Hunt S. McCulloch H. Hemsley Counsel, Soloway & Wright Labour Relations Officer Bargaining Unit Representative Hearing held at Ottawa, 0 ntario on the 1 st day of August 1991 The Association filed a grievance on April 3, 1991 claiming that the Hospital did not implement the parties' first collective agreement properly. The Association asserts that retroactivity was n,ot paid in respect to the percentage-in-lieu and vacation pay. Furthermore, it is claimed that the Hospital failed to register the maternity leave supplemental unemployment benefit plan on a timely basis and breached the collective agreement by not providing the maternity leave SUB benefit retroactive to September 1, 1990 as agreed. A further allegation that the Hospital had not calculated service and seniority properly was withdrawn as the parties had resolved that issue. By way of remedy, the Association claims payment of retroactive percentage-in-Iieu and vacation pay with interest, and payment of an amount in damages equivalent to the supplemental unemployment benefit that ought to have been paid in respect to an employee on maternity leave from October, 1990 to the end of December, 1990. The Association claimed interest on any such damages awarded. I. ENTITLEMENT TO MATERNITY LEAVE SUPPLEMENTAL UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT The particular provisions pertaining to the maternity leave SUB plan are Article 18.01 (h) of the part-time collective agreement and Article 19.01 (h) of the full-time collective agreement. These provisions are identical in wording and read as follows: 1 Effective September 1, 1990 on confirmation by the Unemployment Insurance Commission of the appropriateness of the Hospital's Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) Plan, an employee who is on maternity leave as provided under this agreement who is in receipt of Unemployment Insurance pregnancy benefits pursuant to Section 30 of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1971, shall be paid a supplemental unemployment benefit. That benefit will be equivalent to the difference between seventy-five percent (75%) of her regular weekly earnings and the sum of her weekly Unemployment Insurance benefits and any other earnings. Such payment shall commence following completion of the twb week Unemployment Insurance waiting period, and receipt by the Hospital of the employee's Unemployment Insurance cheque stub as proof that she is in receipt of Unemployment Insurance pregnancy benefits, and shall continue while the employee is in receipt of such benefits for a maximum period of fifteen (15) weeks. The employee's regular weekly earnings shall be determined by multiplying her regular hourly rate on her last day worked prior to the commencement of the leave times her normal weekly hours. The general retroactivity clause is Article 33.01 of the full-time collective agreement and Article 30.01 of the part-time collective agreement. The clauses are identical in wording and read as follows: ARTICLE 30 - RETROACTIVITY 30.01 Retroactivity shall apply to the general wage increase and shall be based on all hours paid from November 17; 1988 for both full-time and part-time employees. Retroactivity shall be paid within sixty (60) days of the Award. Employees who have terminated their employment since November 17, 1988 shall be given notice within thirty (30) days from the date of the Award, by registered mail at their address last known by the Hospital, and shall 2 have sixty (60) days from the date of such notice within which to claim retroactive payment. Retroactive pay will be paid on a separate cheque. The parties entered into a letter of intent dated May 11, 1990 which is appended to both the full-time a.nd part-time collective agreements. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this letter of intent are relevant to the matter before me: 1. In the event an employee goes on maternity leave prior to September 1, 1990, the Supplemental Unemployment Insurance Benefit will be retroactive to the date of the maternity leave. 2. Unless otherwise stated, the collective agreements shall become effective the date of the Keller Arbitration Award. The evidence establishes that the parties reached agreement upon the maternity leave SUB plan on May 11, 1990 during negotiations for the full-time and part-time collective agreements. The adoptive leave SUB plan was referred to interest arbitration and was awarded by the board of arbitration chaired by Arbitrator Brian Keller. The Keller award was issued November 3, 1990. It was common ground that the adoptive leave SUB plan was awarded effective from the date of the award, subject to the necessary approvals from the Unemployment Insurance Commission (UIC). On November 7th, the payroll clerk for the Hospital, Ms. Todd, contacted Mr. Yvan Boudreault, Coverage Officer, Coverage and Premium Policy Division of UIC to obtain advice concerning the process and information required to register 3 the plans. By letter dated November 13, 1990, Mr. Boudreault responded to Ms. Todd's enquiry, enclosing a copy of the document entitled "Information on Supplemental Unemployment Benefits". The document describes the object' of such a plan and the effect of UIC approval of the plan in the following terms at p.l : An employer, either on his own initiative or through the collective bargaining process, may introduce a supplemental unemployment benefit (SUB) plan for his employees. The object of a SUB plan is to supplement unemployment insurance benefits paid by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission during temoorarv oeriods of unemployment due to lack of work, sickness, maternity or adoption. A SUB plan must be approved by the Commission before it becomes operational. otherwise the SUB payments will be considered as earnings and may be subject to deduction from the unemployment insurance benefits payable to the employees. Payments made through the approved SUB plan are not considered as earnings for Unemployment Insurance (Un benefit purposes, nor are they insurable, thus no Unemployment Insurance (Un premium is payable. However, these amounts are subject to income tax and may also be subject to Canada Pension Plan (CPP) premiums. This should be verified with the Source Deduction Unit of a Revenue Canada Taxation District Office. In order to receive Commission approval, the plan must meet certain criteria which are outlined under the heading "Standard Criteria for SUB Plans". Providing a plan meets the criteria and has received Commission approval, monies paid in accordance with the plan will not be considered as earnings for benefit purposes. (emphasis added) '4 At p.2 of the document, the relevant portion of clause 9 of the Standard Criteria states "The effective date of the plan must be stated and duration, of the plan must be at least one year". I find that nothing in the letter or in the enclosed document alerted the Hospital to the fact that UI Regulation 57(13) was about to be amended so as to change a practice of the UlC regarding backdating approval of SUB plans. Furthermore, the evidence of Ms. Todd was to the effect that she was given no warning from any officer of the Commission prior to November 19, 1990 that the UIC regulations were changing. On November 19, 1990, Ms. Todd forwarded a letter containing information about the SUB plan with excerpts from the O.N.A., C.U.P.E. and A.A.H.P:O. collective agreements pertaining to maternity leave, and excerpts from the C.U.P.E. and A.A.H.P:O. collective agreements and the Keller award pertaining to the adoptive leave SUB plan. Further correspondence ensued until eventually a letter dated March 5, 1991 was received by Ms. Todd confirming that the UIC had approved the SUB plan for maternity and adoption covering members of the O.N.A., C.U.P.E. and A.A.H.P.O. bargaining units effective on December 4,1990 until March 31, 1991. Indeed, it was not until Ms. Todd had received a letter dated January 31, 1991 from another coverage officer at UIC that she was made aware that effective November 18, 1990 there had been a change to UI Regulation 57(13) which now required SUB plans to be submitted for approval prior to the stated effective date. It was common ground between the parties that they had understood the UIC regulations and practice to be that regardless of the date the 5 SUB plan is submitted for approval, the UIC would backdate its approval to coincide with the effective date of the SUB plan as agreed by the parties in the collective agreement. This was the assumption underlying the parties' intentions in agreeing to an effective date of September 1, 1990 for the maternity leave SUB plan in both the full-time and part-time collective agreements. Counsel for the Hospital urged me to construe the maternity leave SUB provisions in such a way as to conclude that the Hospital's obligation to pay the maternity leave SUB plan benefit did not arise until approval of the plan by the UIC was confirmed - that is, not until December 4, 1990. I find that the language of the collective agreement provision does not support such a construction. If the parties had intended that confirmation of approval of the plan by the UIC were to operate as a condition, such that the obligation to pay the benefit would not arise unless or until UIC approval had been obtained, they should have used clearer language to effect such a result. The Hospital's argument that UIC approval of the SUB plan was to operate as a condition rather than a term would have been supported if the clause had read, "On condition that the Unemployment Insurance Commission has confirmed its approval of the Hospital's SUB plan effective from September 1, 1990, an employee who is on maternity leave as provided .., shall be paid a supplemental unemployment benefit" . The language chosen by the parties discloses no patent ambiguity. I find that the parties intended UIC approval of the maternity leave SUB plan to operate as a term rather than as a condition upon which the obligation to pay the benefit 6 would depend. I further find that the parties agreed that effective from September 1, 1990, an employee who is on maternity leave and who meets the othe~ eligibility criteria articulated in the section, shall be paid a supplemental , unemployment benefit. The term requiring confirmation by the Unemployment Insurance Commission of the appropriateness of the Hospital's Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) plan was met as of December 4, 1990. Once that term was met, the obligation to pay the maternity leave SUB benefit was agreed to operate from September 1, 1990. Indeed, to the extent that there is any latent ambiguity concerning the effective date from which the parties intended the obligation to pay to operate, resort may be had to paragraph 1 of the appended Letter of Intent dated May 11, 1990. There is no mention of any pre-condition concerning approval by the UIC of the appropriateness of the SUB plan in paragraph 1 prior to the agreed effective date of September 1, 1990. The parties expressly agreed that if an employee goes on maternity leave prior to September 1, 1990, the Supplemental Unemployment Insurance Benefit is stipulated to be retroactive to the date the maternity leave actually commences. Resort may be had as well to the testimony of Ms. McCulloch, the Labour Relations Officer of A.A.H.P:O., who sat on the negotiating committee for these first collective agreements. She testified that it was known to the parties at the time of negotiations that a bargaining unit member, Sherri O'dette, would be taking maternity leave in the fall of 1990. Her evidence to this effect stood uncontradicted. The testimony of Ms. McCulloch and Ms. Todd indicated that 7 maternity leave SUB benefits had been paid under the terms of the C.U.P.E. and O.N.A. collective agreements, in accordance with the effective dates agre~d, despite the fact that these plans were approved later on December 4, 1990. , Apparently, the Hospital did not know that these other plans had not been registered and approved by the UIC. I find that the assumption underlying the parties' agreement as expressed in the full-time and part-time A.A.H.P.O. collective agreements and in the appended letter of intent was that the maternity leave SUB benefit would be payable to Ms. O'dette from the time she went on maternity leave. The parties intended a retroactive effective date for the payment of the SUB plan benefit to an otherwise entitled employee on maternity leave, once the term requiring confirmation of UIC approval was met. This confirmation was obtained. It follows therefore, that Ms. O'dette was entitled to the SUB plan benefit from the time she went on maternity leave in October, 1990 assuming that she met the other eligibility criteria outlined in the article. The testimony of Ms. McCulloch was to the effect that Ms. O'dette was paid the SUB benefit from December 4 to the end of December, 1990. In the result, for the reasons given, this aspect of the Association's grievance is allowed. The submissions of the Association indicate that Ms. O'dette was a member of the part-time bargaining unit at the time she took maternity leave in the fall of 1990. I declare that the Hospital breached Article 18.01 (h) of the part-time collective agreement by failing to pay the maternity leave SUB plan benefit effective from the commencement of her maternity leave in October, 1990. 8 If I am mistaken, and Ms. O'dette was a member of the full-time bargaining unit at the time of taking maternity leave, then I declare that Article 19.01 (h) was, so breached. The evidence and the submissions of the parties indicates that the change to UI Regulation 57(13) now renders it impossible for the SUB benefit itself to be paid for the time period prior to December 4, 1990. Thus, the Association has asked that damages be awarded to Ms. O'dette in lieu of payment of the SUB benefit. The quantum of damages would be calculated as the amount of the SUB plan benefit that should have been paid, less the amount of SUB plan benefit she did receive from December 4, 1990. I accede to the request of the Association and so award damages. However, given that SUB plan benefits received under an approved plan are not considered earnings and are not deducted from the unemployment insurance benefits payable but would be subject to income tax and may be subject to other deductions, I remit to the parties any tax consequences or other similar problems arising from calculating the award of damages in lieu of the SUB plan benefit otherwise payable. I reserve jurisdiction to resolve any problem arising concerning compensation or other problem of implementation arising from the award of damages, which the parties are unable to resolve. The Association has asked for interest on the award of damages. I find that the Hospital did not act unreasonably in applying to register the SUB plan for maternity and adoptive leave together. The Hospital acted with due diligence to collect and remit the information necessary to obtain approval of the SUB plan, once it received the Keller award which awarded the adoptive leave plan. I find 9 that at the time it applied for approval of the plans, the Hospital was labouring under a mistake of law that regulations governing approval by the UIC would allow approval retroactive to the agreed effective date of September 1, 1990. There is a division of opinion as to the authority of an arbitrator to award interest on damages awarded. This division of arbitral authorities is examined in Re Hawker Siddelev Canada Inc. and International Association of Machinists (1990) 12 L.A.C. (4th) 251 (Davis) and the conclusion is drawn that there is . implicit authority to award interest on damages in order to provide a final and binding settlement of the dispute in accordance with the governing statutory mandate and as an integral part of a "make whole" remedy. I would support the reasoning of the Hawker-Siddelev case in principle. On the facts of this case however, I would limit the calculation of interest to the period of time between the date in October, 1990 when Ms. O'dette should have commenced receiving her SUB plan benefit to December 4, 1990 when the Hospital commenced paying it. Interest is to be calculated in accordance with the practice of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. II. RETROACTIVITY ON THE PERCENTAGE-iN-LIEU The relevant provision of the part-time collective agreement is Article 26.04: 26.04 Percentaae-in-lieu of benefits A part-time employee shall receive in lieu of all fringe benefits (being those benefits to an employee, paid in 10 whole or in part by the hospital, as part of direct compensation or otherwise, including holiday pay, save and except salary, vacation pay, standby pay, call-in pay, shift premium, weekend premium, responsibility pay, jury and witness duty, bereavement leave and Supplemental Unemployment Benefits) an amount equal to fourteen percent (14%) of her regular straight time hourly rate for all straight time hours paid. The part-time employees' hourly rate (or straight time hourly rate) in this agreement does riot include the additional fourteen percent (14%) in lieu of fringe benefits and accordingly the fourteen percent (14%) add on payment in lieu of fringe benefits will not be included for the purposes of computing vacation pay, overtime payments or any other premium payment. The Association claimed that the Hospital breached the collective agreement by not calculating the percentage-in-Iieu using the increased wage rates made retroactive to November 17, 1988 pursuant to Article 30.01, the general clause pertaining to retroactivity. The Association further claimed that the percentage-in- lieu at the increased rate of 14% should be applied retroactive to November 17, 1988. ARTICLE 30 - RETROACTIVITY 30.01 Retroactivity shall apply to the general wage increase and shall be based on all hours paid from November 17, 1988 for both full-time and part-time employees. Retroactivity shall be paid within sixty (60) days of the Award. ' Employees who have terminated their employment since November 17, 1988 shall be given notice within thirty (30.) days from the date of the Award, by registered mail at their address last known by the Hospital, and shall have sixty (60) days from the date of such notice within which to claim retroactive payment. 11 , Retroactive pay will be paid on a separate cheque. At the outset, the parties stipulated some agreed facts: 1. Under the pre-collective agreement regime, the old percentage- in-lieu of benefits for part-time employees was 8% for some employees, 12% for others. 2. The percentage-in-lieu under the collective agreement for the term November 18,1988 to March 31,1991 is 14%. 3. Retroactivity was not paid by the Hospital in respect of the percentage-in-Iieu for the period prior to November 3, 1990. 4. The collective agreement for the term November 18, 1988 to March 31, 1991 is a first collective agreement. The effective date of this collective agreement is November 3, 1990 pursuant to the interest arbitration award of a board of arbitration chaired by Arbitrator Keller and constituted pursuant to the provisions of the Hosoitallabour Disoutes Arbitration Act R.S.O. 1980 c.205. In accordance with Article 26.01, Schedule" A" to the collective agreement sets forth the straight-time hourly salary rates payable during the term of the collective agreement. It is common ground that these rates embody a "general wage increase" as mentioned in Article 30.01. The Association argues that since Article 26.04 states that the percentage-in-lieu is "an amount equal to fourteen percent {14%} of her regular straight time hourly rate for all straight time hours paid", the in-lieu amount must be calculated on the new straight time hourly rates set forth in Schedule "A" effective from November 17, 1988. Furthermore, the Association claims that the level of percentage at 14% replaces the pre-contractual rates of 8% and 12% effective from November 17,1988. 12 ' A reading of the collective agreement as a whole does not support the Association's arguments. The parties have expressly stipulated retroactive dates where they intended the clause to have retroactive effect. One example is the Article pertaining to the maternity leave SUB plan discussed above. Other examples of provisions in the full-time and part-time collective agreements for which the parties specified retroactive dates are itemized in a letter dated December 3, 1990 from Ms. McCulloch to the Chief Executive Officer of the' Hospital. Ms. McCulloch's letter enclosed the two collective agreements as we!1 as the salary scales which incorporate the wage increases awarded retroactive to November 17, 1988. It is common ground that the Keller award, which imposed the wage increase, specified the retroactive date for such increases as set out in Article 30.01. I conclude that the absence of a retroactive date in Article 26.04 is significant and reveals that the parties did not intend this provision to have retroactive effect. Furthermore, I note that Article 26.04 expressly states that the percentage- in-lieu payment is not folded into the salary schedule set forth in Schedule" A". Rather, the parties expressly stipulate that the part-time employees' hourly rate (or straight time hourly rate) "does not include the additional fourteen (14%) in lieu of fringe benefits". This language is therefore quite distinct from the languauge considered by the board of arbitration chaired by Arbitrator Saltman in Re 132 Particioatina Hosoitals and Ontario Nurses' Association (unreported) dated March 30, 1984. Article 18.01 (b) of the collective agreement in that case stated that the 13 ' hourly salary rates were inclusive of the 14% percentage-in-Iieu. Article 18.10 of that collective agreement provided that increases to the salary schedule were to be retroactive to October 1. 1980. Since the percentage-in-lieu formed an integral part of ~he houdy salary rates pursuant to Article 18.01 (bl, the salary schedule derived, from such hourly rates and the retroactive effect of such salaries pursuant to Article 18.10 dictated the conclusion reached that increases to the percentage- in-lieu must be retroactive. The language in Article 26.04 in the collective agreement before me is quite diffl:lrent. Furthermore, had the parties intended the 14% level of percentage-in-lieu to be retroactive beyond the effective date of the collective agreement, they would have so specified. Article 26.04, when read with Article 26.01, Schedule "A" and Article 30.01, indicates that the parties intended that the increasese to the salary grid onlv would be given retroactive effect. The parties chose not to agree to a specific retroactive date for the percentage-in-lieu to change from 8% to 12% to 14% prior to the effective date of the collective agreement. Section 1 O(9) of the Hosoital Labour Disoutes Arbitration Act R.S.O. 1980 c.205 states that the effective date is to be the date of the interest arbitration award, unless a different date is agreed or awarded. No such retroactive date was agreed. The Hospital drew my attention to the unreported award dated November 17, 1990 of the interest board of arbitration chaired by Arbitrator IlIing between Toronto East General Hosoital and Service Emolovees International Union. Local 204 for an example of language in an interest arbitration award which would have 14 the effect of importing the general wage increase into the calculation of the percentage-in-Iieu as an express direction. At pages 19-20, the board directs the following: Retroactivity to October 11, 1989 shall apply only to the general wage increase and classification adjustments and shall be paid on the basis of hours paid since that date. The existing percentage in lieu of benefits will be calculated and paid on the retroactive payments for part- time employees, for the period from October 11, 1989 to the date of effecting the increase. (emphasis added) No such wording is contained in Article 26.04 or Article 30.01 of the collective agreement. Where the parties intended to have retroactive effect to the entitlements in the collective agreement. they have so specified. I received the interest arbitration award between these parties disposing of the outstanding issues for their first collective agreement subject to a reservation concerning the use that could be made of this extrinsic evidence. I do not find that language of the collective agreement in respect to the percent-in-Iieu issues argued by the Association to be patently or latently ambiguous. The clear language of the agreement does not support the position taken by the Association. If I am mistaken and these provisions are latently ambiguous, I would conclude that the extrinsic evidence supports the interpretation I have given to the operative provisions. ' Set forth at page 15 of the award is the Association proposal in respect to the issue of retroactivity. The relevant section of that proprosal 15 clearly called for retroactive compensation in lieu of benefits and vacation pay to November 17,1988: 33.01 Increases in salary (based on all hours paid), compensation in lieu of benefits and vacation pay shall be retroactive to November 17, 1988. Such retroactivity , shall be paid within 3 pay periods of the date of the award. Employees who have terminated their employment since November 17, 1988, shall be given notice within fifteen (15) days following the award by registered mail at their address last known by the Hospital, and shall have sixty (60) days from the date. The Hospital proposal only allowed for retroactivity on the general wage increase: Retroactivity shall apply to the general wage increase and shall be based on all hours paid from November 17, 1988 for both full-time and part-time employees. Retroactivity shall be paid within sixty {60} days of the Award. Employees who have terminated their employment since November 17, 1988 shall be given notice within thirty (30) days from the date of the Award, by registered mail at their address last known by the Hospital, and shall have sixty (60) days from the date of such notice within which to claim retroactive payment. Retroactive pay will be paid on a separate cheque. The board of arbitration, without much elaboration of its reasons, awarded the Hospital's proposal, which allows retroactivity on wages only and not compensation in lieu of benefits and vacation pay. 16 For all the reasons given, the grievance in respect to the retroactivity of the percentage-in-lieu is dismissed. III. RETROACTIVITY OF VACATION PAY AND THE PERCENTAGE-IN-lIEU OF VACATION The heading to Article 31.01 of the full-time collective agreement pertaining to vacations contains a notation in brackets that the Article is effective from April 1, 1990. No such notation appears at the heading or in any other clause pertaining to vacations in Article 28 of the part-time collective agreement. Vacation pay for part-time employees is dealt with in Article 28.02: 28.02 Part-time employees shall be entitled to the vacation time off annually as is allowed full-time employees in their respective classifications. .vacation pay for part-time employees shall be as follows: 3 week vacation entitlement - 6% of earnings 4 week vacation entitlement - 8% of earnings 5 week vacation entitlement - 10% of earnings 6 week vacation entitlement - 12% of earnings It was an agreed fact that prior to the collective agreement, all part-time employees received vacation pay at the rate of 6% of earnings. The collective agreement increased the percentage-in-lieu of vacation rate to 8% for those part- time employees holding baccalaureate degrees. As noted above, the retroactivity clause awarded in Article 30.01 backdates only the general wage increase to November 17, 1988 for part-time employees. I 17 find that "earnings" must be calculated upon the straight-time hourly rates as they were up to November 3, 1990 and thereafter the increased wage rates as set forth in Schedule "A" would form the basis of calculating "earnings" in Article 28:02. Article 28.02 specifically provides that part-time employees are to receive the same vacation time off annually as is allowed full-time employees in their respective classifications. Article 30.01, subsections (a) through (g) inclusive, of the full-time collective agreement sets forth the formula for the accrual of vacation time entitlement as expressed in days per month of service and in some instances in its weekly equivalent. Article 31.01 of the full-time collective agreement and Article 28.01 of the part-time collective agreement contain a formula for determining the service equivalent of part-time service to equal one year of full- time service. Thus, in order to determine the part-time employee's annual entitlement to vacation time off, recourse must be had to Article 31.01 of the full: time collective agreement. In this respect, it is specifically indicated that part-time employees are to enjoy the same entitlement as their full-time counterparts in their respective classifications. In order to understand the meaning of the ambiguous note to the heading to Article 31 in the full-time collective agreement, it is helpful to resort to the Keller award which disposed of a dispute of the parties concerning quantum 'of vacation' , entitlement for full-time employees and awarded the Association proprosal effective April 1, 1990. It becomes clear that it is the quantum of vacation time off which was given retroactive effect. and not vacation pay. 18 For the reasons given, the Association's claim that the Hopital breached the collective agreemen by failing to give retroactive effect to the calculation of vacation payor by failing to give retroactive effect to the increase in the . percentage-in-Iieufrom 6% to 8% for part-time employees with B.A. degrees fails. That aspect of the grievance is dismissed. Dated at Kingston, Ontario on this 19th day of February, 1993. Ct ,jF,E~) \ Jane E. Emrich 19